People v. Hanley 30 N.Y.2d 863

Memorandum.

The order of County Court of Herkimer County, reversing the judgment of the Court of Special Sessions convicting defendant of violation of section 1102 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, should be affirmed (People v. Fidler, 280 App. Div. 698). The order failed to make recital of grounds for reversal as set forth in sections 543 (subd. 3) and 543-a of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to this County Court appeal (CPL 1.10, subd. 2, par. [b]). This question was not raised or argued by the People as appellant and the court deems it unnecessary to remand for formal implementation of the County Court’s order. But these directory provisions should be followed when there is reversal or modification in intermediate criminal appeals. The new Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 470.25, subd. 2, par. [b]) is more explicit in its directory provisions in this respect than the former code.

*865Scileppi and Jasen, JJ. (dissenting).

The order appealed from, which reversed the judgment of conviction, does not in our view comply with applicable provisions of .statute. Intermediate appellate courts, which reverse or modify judgments of lower courts, are required, under the former Code of Criminal Procedure (§§ 543, subd. 3, 543-a) and now under the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 470.20, 470.25) to provide a statement as to the basis of their decision and the necessary recital is not a matter which can be lightly cast aside. It is upon such recitals that determinations as to our jurisdiction are made (People v. Sullivan, 29 N Y 2d 937, 938; People v. Rainey, 27 N Y 2d 748; CPL 450.90). The order should, therefore, be reversed and the case remitted to the Herkimer County Court for compliance with the statute.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Breitel and G-ibson concur; Judges Scileppi and Jasen dissent and vote to reverse in a separate memorandum.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.